Elena Elimova1,2, Xuemei Wang3, Wei Qiao3, Kazuki Sudo1, Roopma Wadhwa1, Hironori Shiozaki1, Yusuke Shimodaira1, Venkatram Planjery1, Nikolaos Charalampakis1, Jeffrey H Lee4, Brian R Weston4, Manoop S Bhutani4, Ritsuko Komaki5, David C Rice6, Stephen G Swisher6, Mariela A Blum1, Jane E Rogers7, Heath D Skinner5, Dipen M Maru8, Wayne L Hofstetter9, Jaffer A Ajani1. 1. Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 4. Department of Gastroenterology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 6. Department of Thoracic Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 7. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 8. Department of Pathology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 9. Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of surveillance after therapy of localized esophageal cancer (LEC) is to identify actionable relapses amenable to salvage; however, the current surveillance algorithms are not optimized. We report on a large cohort of LEC patients with actionable locoregional relapses (LRRs). METHODS: Between 2000 and 2013, 127 (denominator = 752) patients with actionable LRR were identified. Histologic/cytologic confirmation was the gold standard. All surveillance tools (imaging, endoscopy, fine needle aspiration) were assessed. RESULTS: Most patients were men (89%), had adenocarcinoma (79%), and had no new symptoms (72%) when diagnosed with LRR. In trimodality patients, endoscopic confirmation of positron emission tomography-computed tomography-suspected LRR occurred in only 44%, and 56% required additional tools (e.g., fine needle aspiration). Alternatively, in bimodality patients, endoscopy confirmed LRRs in 81%. Trimodality patients had a higher risk of subsequent LRR/distant metastases after the first LRR than the bimodality patients (p = 0.03). In all patients, 78% of the subsequent relapses were distant. For patients who were salvaged, survival was significantly prolonged (50.6 vs. 25.1 months, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients live longer after successful salvage of the LRR than if salvage is not possible. After LRR, patients have a high risk of subsequent distant metastasis and whether the second relapse is local or distant, survival is uniformly poor.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of surveillance after therapy of localized esophageal cancer (LEC) is to identify actionable relapses amenable to salvage; however, the current surveillance algorithms are not optimized. We report on a large cohort of LEC patients with actionable locoregional relapses (LRRs). METHODS: Between 2000 and 2013, 127 (denominator = 752) patients with actionable LRR were identified. Histologic/cytologic confirmation was the gold standard. All surveillance tools (imaging, endoscopy, fine needle aspiration) were assessed. RESULTS: Most patients were men (89%), had adenocarcinoma (79%), and had no new symptoms (72%) when diagnosed with LRR. In trimodality patients, endoscopic confirmation of positron emission tomography-computed tomography-suspected LRR occurred in only 44%, and 56% required additional tools (e.g., fine needle aspiration). Alternatively, in bimodality patients, endoscopy confirmed LRRs in 81%. Trimodality patients had a higher risk of subsequent LRR/distant metastases after the first LRR than the bimodality patients (p = 0.03). In all patients, 78% of the subsequent relapses were distant. For patients who were salvaged, survival was significantly prolonged (50.6 vs. 25.1 months, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:Patients live longer after successful salvage of the LRR than if salvage is not possible. After LRR, patients have a high risk of subsequent distant metastasis and whether the second relapse is local or distant, survival is uniformly poor.
Authors: Stephen J Freedland; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Leslie A Mangold; Mario Eisenberger; Frederick J Dorey; Patrick C Walsh; Alan W Partin Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-07-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Vera Oppedijk; Ate van der Gaast; Jan J B van Lanschot; Pieter van Hagen; Rob van Os; Caroline M van Rij; Maurice J van der Sangen; Jannet C Beukema; Heidi Rütten; Patty H Spruit; Janny G Reinders; Dick J Richel; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Maarten C C M Hulshof Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-01-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jennifer A Dorth; John A Pura; Manisha Palta; Christopher G Willett; Hope E Uronis; Thomas A D'Amico; Brian G Czito Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-04-07 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: S Pita-Fernández; M Alhayek-Aí; C González-Martín; B López-Calviño; T Seoane-Pillado; S Pértega-Díaz Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-11-19 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: James Welsh; Stephen H Settle; Arya Amini; Lianchun Xiao; Akihiro Suzuki; Yuki Hayashi; Wayne Hofstetter; Ritsuko Komaki; Zhongxing Liao; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 6.860